Laserfiche WebLink
Ordinance Amendment^ Oversized Accessory Structures <br />July 21, 1989 <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />Additionally, staff is suggesting that for the lot coverage <br />sections, a minimum allowance be granted for small lots, so <br />that for instance, a typical 50* lot in Navarre would still <br />have the ability to construct a detached garage in addition <br />to the house. The proposed revision sets the allowance for <br />any developed lot at 1,500 square feet, which would be 20% <br />of the typical 50'xl50* lot. Of course, the 1,500 square <br />foot threshold can be raised or lowered if Council is so <br />inclined. <br />3. A new section has been added to revise and clarify the <br />existing code section which requires an accessory building <br />to be at least 10' away from a principal structure. Staff <br />has consistently required that accessory buildings also be <br />10* from each other, but it was recently brought to staff's <br />attention that the code as it is written only requires the <br />10* setback from an accessory structure to a principal <br />structure, and not between accessory structures. <br />The proposed revision will make the code conform to what has <br />been consistently enforced, and will provide the necessary <br />safety and visual density controls staff feels are <br />appropriate. We would not expect a significant number of <br />new variances due to this section. It also will give us the <br />ability to legitimately require that pool water surfaces <br />will be at least 10* from any other structure, accessory <br />building roofed area, or other nearby facility that could be <br />used as a diving board. This is a concern because there was <br />at least one case approximately 10 years ago where an Orono <br />property owner had a pool less than 10' from the overhanging <br />deck on the house and sustained serious injury when trying <br />to dive off the second story deck into the pool. <br />4. Although not revised in the ordinance draft attached, <br />staff would recommend that you consider revising the rear <br />yard required setback for tennis courts, pools and paddocks <br />to be merely 30* minimum and drop the requirement that such <br />structures be outside the required rear yard area, since <br />that would start to have a significant effect on restricting <br />drainfield sites in the 2 acre and 5 acre zones. <br />Staff Reconendation -> <br />With the changes noted above, staff feels that the ordinance <br />amendment is workable and would recommend adoption. <br />li